and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
17 Jul 2012, 14:55

2

This post receivedKUDOS

6

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

58%(03:15) correct
42%(02:06) wrong based on 421 sessions

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.

This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFICWe have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument. (C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway. _________________

Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
31 Jul 2012, 04:14

1

This post receivedKUDOS

People who oppose abortion base their argument on the sanctity of human life. But the same people does allow human sacrifice in the war which they think is for the greater good of humanity in general. Example has been provided: Number of traffic fatalities can be reduced if a federal legislation is mandated to limit the speed to 25mph nationwide.We are willing to let go quantity of human life for quality.

This overlap occurs because there has to be a balance between what human think implicitly and explicitly. Its the same balance that deals with quantity and quality of life. Hence B is the answer.

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.

This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFICWe have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument. (C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.

Please teach us how negation works in general, you made this difficult question answer in a very technical way to make us comprehend _________________

How have you figured that the conclusion of the argument is 'We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality'?

From OA, your conclusion is obviously correct. But on first reading, i thought the below was the conclusion:

The abortion opponents' arguments based on sanctity of life are weak (conclusion) because we are always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality (premise)

tuanquang269 wrote:

gjg wrote:

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.

This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFICWe have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument. (C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.

Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
21 Aug 2012, 11:18

Expert's post

I really don't understand how come you guys are saying that answer is B.As per the conclusion," we have always been willing to trade off QUANTITY of human life for quality".B says..........in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.D says.....the protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society. Has protection of human life been the justifiable goal of society, then in such a case we won't have always been willing to trade of quantity of human life for quality.With that, I suppose the answer has to be D.Please correct me if I am missing something. _________________

Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
10 Sep 2012, 22:38

siddharthasingh wrote:

I really don't understand how come you guys are saying that answer is B.As per the conclusion," we have always been willing to trade off QUANTITY of human life for quality".B says..........in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.D says.....the protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society. Has protection of human life been the justifiable goal of society, then in such a case we won't have always been willing to trade of quantity of human life for quality.With that, I suppose the answer has to be D.Please correct me if I am missing something.

I think your going a way bit off here.

We actually want to have a balance ; but option D just states that protection of life is not a justifiable goal . how does it even relate to the conclusion or even when you negate, it does not attack the conclusion .

It's a mere conclusion drawn and not any unstated premise from which we can draw a conclusion. _________________

Conclusion: Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Pre-thinking: From the premises and esp conclusion, we get to know that the assumption should not be too specific to any of the premises but has to be somewhat braod covering the argument. Also from the premises and conclusion, we come to know that the argument is mainly talking about the quantity(abortions, no. of traffic fatalities,war) and quality (sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents; federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads). Moreover, the focus of the conclusion is about quantity and quality of human life.

By POE, we see that options A,C & E are too specific and do not make sense looking at the conclusion. Finally on negating D & E as below:

D. The protection of human life is a justifiable goal of society --> Doesn't affect the conclusion at all.B. An appropriate societal decision is not made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. ---> If this is true then the conclusion will fall part. In the sense there will be trade off in terms of quantity and quality of human life, affecting arguments concerning war , traffic fatalities and abortion opponents and sanctity of human life.

Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
14 Feb 2015, 03:23

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.